Lieberman v. Pappas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lieberman v. Pappas

140 A.D.3d 588, 33 N.Y.S.3d 697

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 23, 2016

Docket1557 651402/12

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.3d 588 (Lieberman v. Pappas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lieberman v. Pappas, 140 A.D.3d 588, 33 N.Y.S.3d 697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered on or about July 25, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against defendant Timothy Pappas, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion denied.

The record demonstrates that defendant Timothy Pappas dominated defendant Trans Sport Racing LLC, and there is evidence that Pappas abused the corporate form first to induce plaintiff Jon Lieberman to advance money for the race car *589 operation and later to shield assets from Lieberman. Moreover, there is evidence that Pappas moved funds among various of his entities without justification. Thus, an issue of fact exists as to whether the corporate veil should be pierced to hold Pap-pas personally liable for plaintiffs’ damages (see TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp., 92 NY2d 335, 339 [1998]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Richter and Gesmer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saliann Scarpulla, J.), entered on or about July 25, 2015, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against defendant Timothy Pappas, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion denied.

The record demonstrates that defendant Timothy Pappas dominated defendant Trans Sport Racing LLC, and there is evidence that Pappas abused the corporate form first to induce plaintiff Jon Lieberman to advance money for the race car *589 operation and later to shield assets from Lieberman. Moreover, there is evidence that Pappas moved funds among various of his entities without justification. Thus, an issue of fact exists as to whether the corporate veil should be pierced to hold Pap-pas personally liable for plaintiffs’ damages (see TNS Holdings v MKI Sec. Corp., 92 NY2d 335, 339 [1998]).

Concur — Tom, J.P., Friedman, Richter and Gesmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 588, 33 N.Y.S.3d 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lieberman-v-pappas-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack